1989 (6) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector of Central Excise after the amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, Karnataka, challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 5-8-1987. The central issue in this case was whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had the jurisdiction to pass an order in a matter where the longer period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was invoked. The lower appellate authority had set aside the original order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, without issuing a fresh show cause notice, conducted de novo adjudication proceedings and passed an order on 18-3-1987 imposing a duty liability on the respondent by invoking the longer period of limitation. The respondent appealed against this order, contending that post the amendment to Section 11A of the Act, only the Collector of Central Excise had the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving the longer period of limitation.

The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the respondent's contention, holding that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act from 27-12-1985 onwards. The Collector of Central Excise was deemed to be the competent authority for such adjudications post the amendment.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, held that the amendment to Section 11A of the Act, effective from 27-12-1985, exclusively conferred jurisdiction on the Collector of Central Excise for cases involving the longer period of limitation. The Tribunal found the reasoning of the lower appellate authority to be sound and supported by the instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Consequently, the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was deemed to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. The respondent's counsel withdrew the cross-objection, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, affirming the jurisdictional limitations of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise post the amendment to Section 11A of the Act.